Monster Inconsistencies. [3.5 and Pathfinder]

[Ursus the Grim]

This is a rant, and a question.

Again, I notice something that makes me rage a bit in 3.5.

Crocodile

Medium
Bite for a d8 or Tail slap for a d12

Giant Crocodile

Huge
Bite for 2d8 or Tail Slap for d12


I understand how most of the system works. I understand that there are far more grievous offenses. Here, though, we have an example of something that should have been easy to replicate. Why not follow their own example with advancing monsters? If a Crocodile had been brought up to Huge Size, their stats would be higher than the Giant Crocodile. I can understand how they got 2d8 for the bite, but why is the Tail Slap the same strength, despite again, the size increase?

Then there's the issue of the "or" clause in the attack block. We have here an example of a creature with multiple natural attacks that cannot use both of them on a full attack. I can only assume that this is a relic of the 3.0 time, when there was a chance that he couldn't turn around, and for versimillitude, the croc would tail slap. But what it results in in 3.5 is it being more sensible for the croc to use its tail, (a greataxe to a longsword) thus telling the DM to either not play the creature to its potential or play it smarter than it should be.

And then, some 202 pages earlier, you have a creature attacking with such awkwardly positioned natural weapons it would be "impossible" to maneuver each one to hit a single creature in six seconds with all of them.

/rant

So now for the question. Is Pathfinder better when it comes to staying consistent with monsters and making sense?

[Runestar]

The crocodile has improved grab with its bite attack.

Thus, when it would be restricted to only a single attack for that round (say after a charge), it can either opt to attack with its tail for higher overall damage, or bite for slightly lower damage plus the option of grappling (which can be situationally more advantageous). So you cannot claim it is always better to just attack with its tail everytime.

As for the giant crocodile's tail slap damage remaining the same, it was likely designed as a separate monster, and not as an advanced version of the crocodile. Thus, my guess is that the designers felt that 1d12 was appropriate compared to say, 4d6?, which I disagree, because now, there is absolutely no reason to attack with its tail whatsoever!

It's still a very strong cr4 challenge regardless. As for whether pathfinder does it better, I am not sure. I only know that it does things differently, but not necessarily better. :smalltongue:

[Infernalbargain]

I haven't found any inconsistencies in pathfinder myself. They even made a nice table of what what all the natural attacks damage and type should be by size.

[Ursus the Grim]

I haven't found any inconsistencies in pathfinder myself. They even made a nice table of what what all the natural attacks damage and type should be by size.

See, I know roughly what to expect in terms of these variables in 3.5, but the problem is that the MM doesn't follow it.

See: Monk damage progression.

[Infernalbargain]

See, I know roughly what to expect in terms of these variables in 3.5, but the problem is that the MM doesn't follow it.

See: Monk damage progression.

Ah you're using monster manual X, bestiary X monsters do follow the PF chart to my knowledge.